Q) Verification Statement (10.03.32p)

Recent test takers report that question #32 from the October 2003 (PM) test is in the patent bar exam database.

32. Determine which of the following documents, if any, must also contain a separate verification statement in accordance with the patent laws, rules and procedures as related in the MPEP.
(A) A request to correct inventorship in a pending application.
(B) A petition to make an application special.
(C) A claim for foreign priority.
(D) A substitute specification.
(E) None of the above.

ANSWER: (E) is the most correct answer. MPEP § 410 states that the certification requirement set forth in 37 CFR § 10.18(b) “has permitted the USPTO to eliminate the separate verification requirement previously contained in 37 CFR …1.48 [correction of inventorship in a patent application], …1.55 [claim for foreign priority], …1.102 [petition to make an application special], [and] … 1.125 [substitute specification].”

Steve, I looked up the related part in MPEP 410.
I hope this is helpful.
In conclusion, the each verification statement is required to be contained in oath or declaration.

“The first certification has permitted the USPTO to eliminate the separate verification requirement previously contained in 37 CFR 1.6, 1.8, 1.10, 1.27, 1.28, 1.47, 1.48, 1.52, 1.55, 1.69, 1.102, 1.125, 1.137, 1.377, 1.378, 1.740, 1.804, 1.805, 3.26, and 5.4 for statements of facts by persons who are not registered to practice before the USPTO. As statements submitted to the USPTO by any person are now, by operation of 37 CFR 10.18(b)(1), verified statements, a separate verification requirement is no longer necessary. The USPTO, however, has retained the verification requirement for a statement to be submitted under oath or declaration (37 CFR 1.68) in a number of sections (e.g., 37 CFR 1.63, 1.130, 1.131, 1.132, 1.495(f), and 5.25). “